My name is a comum name in my land, and Portugal. But we build Brazil. In much time ago my ancestors go to Brazil. No corromped and thief like Malvinas. Britons are pirates. Malvinas belong Argentina...no more!

The arrogance of statements like that. Especially in the Americas, where waves of migrants have displaced the "native" peoples there. There is no such thing as a "god-given" right, or "god's chosen people" - the distribution of various peoples around the globe is all an accident of history. If the people of the Falklands want to call themselves the Falklands and are happy to remain dependents of Britian, so be it. Quite frankly, I think penguins and wolves have a better claim to Patagonia and England than the people currently residing there.

Yes, we all know about the policies of Los Reyes Católicos (Isabella and Ferdinand)

On the 500th anniversary of the discovery of the New World by Columbus the indigenous people refused to celebrate. They said that the arrival of the white man had brought death and destruction in the form of the Inquisition and venereal disease

So you don't deny you invaded and stole what is now Brazil from the indigenous people who lived there? You might have built Brazil, but you seem to forget that you did it with a LOT of help from a LOT of slaves.

The UK has the right and the duty to defend the Falklands in whichever way it chooses.

You agree with Aurelio, in spite of the fact his ancestors the Portuguese also acted like robber barons, nicking what is now Brazil, vast swathes of Africa too, shipping millions of slaves across the Atlantic to their deaths. Not an "exemplary" colonial past either...

Yes, but I do not believe that they were as cruel as the Spaniards. Do not forget that this was a different age. The British also dabbled in slaves. Their descendants ran the cotton plantations in the Southern USA. There were no human rights there

Did the Portuguese also burn heretics and other non-believers at the stake? Perhaps it was during the reign of Phillip II of Spain?

Yes, precisely, it was a different age. Territorial acquisition by conquest was perfectly normal then. Yet you call the British "robber barons" and agree with the Argentine claim over the Falklands, when most of what is now Argentina was "acquired" from its native owners long after independence from Spain, in the 1870s and 1880s and long after the British had established control over the Falklands. Also you completely ignore the fact that the Falkland Islanders have been living there peacefully for generations, 8 and even 9 generations in some cases. Most Argentines are 3rd and possibly 4th generation immigrants. What gives Argentina more rights over the Falklands than the Falkland Islanders themselves?

You do get it that Argentines calling the British "robber barons" etc is a bit hypocritical?

The Falkland Islanders were forced to drive on the right and follow Argentine rules in 1982. Anyway, why is that even relevant? The Falkland Islanders don't want to be Argentine and why should they be forced to be something they don't want to be? What gives Argentina the right to impose its will on the Falkland Islanders in direct contravention of the UN Charter and a whole raft of UN Resolutions?

JJerez, at least check Wikipedia. The British use the force to get the possession of the islands in 1832. Argentina "was born" in 1810 therefore there are families who have been living there for 10 generations for sure.

I'am sorry to have to rectify you but Argentina wasn´t born in 1810. Furthermore, if we had to give back lands to native people they wouldn´t be people from European ascendancy but real natives who were first stolen their lands.

Wrong, very wrong.
Argentina declared independence in 1816, that was the end of a process that started in 1810 after the Mayo Revolution, when the spanish rulers were sent home. Even though the name Argentina did not exist back in 1810, in that year started the process of the formation of the Argentine State. Besides, in 1853 was established a Constitution, oficially called "Constitucion de la Confederacion Argentina" 8 years before the Pavon Battle. There was also a Constitution in 1826. So it is completely inaccurate to argue that Argentina was born in 1861.

Dear Sir, you apparently forgot the period when the Liga Federal existed between 1816 and 1920. It was a federal state formed by the Banda Oriental, now Uruguay, and many territories that at present day are part of Argentina. Certainly, it was not Argentina and its capital was located far away from Buenos Aires, the self-proclaimed queen of the Silver River. But, in my opinion for the reasons I have exposed before it is highly controversial, to say the least, that Argentina could pretend to have had sovereignty over the Falklands just when the UK occupied them in 1830.

With all due respect, your argument does not make any sense. Liga Federal between 1816-1920? Then one can argue that that Argentina was not formed until 1920? Is that what you mean? Absurd, your own comment proves you wrong. Of course Banda Oriental was part of the territores of the Confederacion at some point of history, but all this was the historic process which gave birth to Argentina and Uruguay.

"Certainly, it was not Argentina and its capital was located far away from Buenos Aires"
Could you please tell me which city was the capital?

I did not make any comment on the Falklands, I just pointed your lack of knowledge of history. With all due respect.

I note that mr. Chavez is up for reelction this year and is sadly in poor health.

His cancer has taken a great deal out of him.

Regrettably, Mrs. kirchner also has cancer; I hope she can be successfully treated.

However, I would be perplexed if two nations whose presidents are in poor health took on such a vigorous task as attacking an island territory duw to an 1833 wrong. I would not want to be the Argentine or Venezuelean general or admiral taked with taking the Falklands.

Take it to the ICJ if you want to. Argentina wants what the Falkland Islanders have, the Falkland Islanders want and need nothing from Argentina.

Peace? Respect? The Falkland Islanders have been prepared to live in peace with Argentina, and in fact, until 1965 did live in peace with Argentina, interacting with the mainland like any normal neighbour. I grew up in Rio Gallegos, and there were many people there with FI links only 40 years ago. They have probably all died off now. It is Argentina which is and has been behaving in an aggressive way to the Falkland Islanders, it was Argentina who mounted an armed invasion of the Falkland Islands. It's a bit rich to call for peace when Argentina treats the FI like they do. As for respect, what a joke. Argentina does not even recognise that the Falkland Islanders exist or have rights. Argentina has written it into her constitution that she will not stop until she has taken away the Falkland Islanders homeland... respect my arse!

You have the claim, you want to prove it, you take it to the ICJ. The UK tried in the 1950s and was told to get lost by Argentina, so the ball is back in your court. Somehow I don't think you have a stronger case now than in the 1950s, more likely a weaker one, considering the 1982 invasion.

"You have the claim, you want to prove it, you take it to the ICJ. The UK tried in the 1950s and was told to get lost by Argentina, so the ball is back in your court. Somehow I don't think you have a stronger case now than in the 1950s, more likely a weaker one, considering the 1982 invasion."

Well the only thing the ICJ has to decide is if the Falkland Islanders have a right to self determination. If they find that then Argentina's case is holed below the waterline. And considering all the international law surrounding this, plus the cases so far ie Western Sahara, East Timor and Kosovo, Argentina has a snowball's chance in hell of proving that the Falkland Islanders have no right to self determination.

Like I said, the ball is in your court. You are the ones with the claim and the grievance. You have nothing to lose, apart from 63 years of "face" plus a lot of investment in badly inaccurate school history books. Go for it! Take the matter to the ICJ.

I can't help laughing when the argument of self determination appears in the discussion. Ask the the inhabitants of the Chagos archipelago how fond of self determination of their overseas subjects is the UK.

If geographical proximity is neglected as an argument and post colonial legal vacuum is the pretext for an illegal occupation Argentina should have occupied Jersey since long ago.

Diego Garcia is just one of the Chagossian islands, so you mean the Chagossian people. What Argentina wants to do the Falkland Islanders is exactly what the UK did to the Chagossians, and you use the Chagossian case in support of your claim?

not every british colony which asked for independence was ganted their wish. aside from the very obvious united states which had some difficulty in the process of dissociation, in modern times you can ask the natives of diego garcia island in the indian ocean. nobody gave a hoot about their wishes and aspirations. the were unceremoniously booted out en masse, just to hand over the place to the americans free of tenants. and talking of united nations, the body has repeatedly urged the uk to enter into negociations with argentina over the sovereignty of the islands. still waiting.

Fair point re the USA and the Chagossians, which is a blot on British history, amongst many. It doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of the former British empire is now independent, mostly peacefully, that the only territories who remain under British sovereignty today do so at their own request, that the UK is prepared at any moment to grant them independence if they wish, and is on record for this.

Also, there is not a single UN Resolution which calls for the UK and Argentina to discuss the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. They all call for the UK and Argentina to resolve their dispute over sovereignty. Something completely different. There is not a single UN Resolution which says the Falklands should rightfully be Argentine, yet every relevant resolution makes it clear that the Falkland Islanders have a right to self determination.

As for still waiting, there was a round of negotiations in the late sixties and seventies, with many concessions by the UK, some of them against the wishes of the Falkland Islanders and what did that all result in? An armed invasion. Again the UK negotiated with Argentina in the 1990s and 2000s regarding the Falklands. A sovereignty umbrella was agreed, plus a number of other agreements over hydrocarbons, fisheries etc - all torn up and thrown away by Argentina.

We're still waiting for Argentina to actually stick by an agreement...

i do agree in all fairness that the overwhelming majority of former british colonies are today independent, and many are first class nations, which speaks volumes of british culture and their respect for the rule of law. you are correct that there are numerous united nations resolutions urging the uk and argentina to resolve the dispute, and not to discuss sovereignty. granted, the difference is by no means mute. and oh yes, argentina`s past record in keeping agreements in the south atlantic is not precisely mint, which militates against her aspirations over the islands

Indeed Britain should find a way to resolve both Falklands (Malvinas) and Gibraltar. Maybe the inhabitants of these two enclaves could be offered double nationalities for them and their descendants and a choice to leave with some type of subsidy to the UK. There is indeed enough stupidity to go around all the way to Casa Rosada/Buckingham/Downing. In the case of the Malvinas, Latin American governments are unlikely to back the UK on this one no matter what side of the spectrum they are on.

I have mixed views on this issue. On the one hand, Argentina's "legal claims" are, at best, flimsy. The Falklanders have lived there as long as most of the settled areas of the New World. Clearly they do not want to change soveriegnty. That has to be taken into consideration.

But... forget the legalisms or time of British settlement. The fact is that the Falklands are 6,000+ miles from the UK and are less than 500 miles from Argentina. That alone is a very powerful argument... and diminshes the UK's claim. To argue otherwise, or to try and couch a counter-argument in legal terms, is just blowing a forlorn breath into the winds of history. Unless the UK is willing to spend extraordinary amounts of money defending these distant islands in perpetuem-Argentina will attain custody of the islands at some point. After all-this has become a matter of Argentine national honor that seems to superseede all arguments-legal, logical or otherwise... and Argentines have already shown a willingness to kill and die over these rocks.

I will ask why Argentina hasn't made an offer to buy the islanders out? How much did the 1982 war cost in adjusted dollars? Four to six billion? That sum, split among the 4,000 or so residents, could probably have enticed the islanders to change their minds. Try again. The US had to buy territories. Argentina is not above this.

Distance a powerful argument? Well then by your own argument the Falkland Islanders win, because the Falkland Islanders live zero miles from the Falkland Islands, which beats the 500 miles to Argentina hands down.

I'm not the one with an argument with the Falklanders. Actually, I sympathize and feel very badly for them. None-the-less, the reality of the Falklands proximity to Argentina (and South America) vs proximity to the UK remains.

That's a reality the Falkland Islanders have been living with for decades. An aggressive neighbour who covets their homeland. Not something new in the world. It doesn't mean the should just roll over and let Argentina walk in a take it all...

Fair enough. But we are talking about 4,000-5,000 islanders right? At some point the limits of legitimate defense for these few people is reached. For example(for the sake of argument-this is NOT a prediction)-a major regional war that leaves the region devestated, and millions impoverished, would not be a legitimate and perportional defense of the 4,000 islanders. This would be excessive. So... there is a limit and a price to all this. The UK can only attempt to prevent Argentina from taking things beyond the point of legitimate and perportional defense. Argentina need only muster the political will to exceede that invisible line. Obviously, the initative is with Argentina... and in the long run... You get my point.

Well that's too bad for Argentina then. Proximity is very powerful argument in this case. Argentina's other legal claims seem dubious at best. I take it that is why this case has not seen the inside of a courtroom? Anyway-I know and have worked with plenty of Brits. I can tell you... the tack you are taking is NOT the way to try and get something from them.

The number is absolutely relevant. We are not talking about two or three million West Berliner's at the height of the Cold War (and even that was a controversial defense at the time). We are talking about a tiny population of a reasonably disputed and distant (from the UK) Island. There is a legitimate limit to the perportional defense of 4,000 people.

Argentina doesn't have any strong or serious argument. Let's see.
1)Proximity. With that argument, Cuba would be American and Japan would belong to China.
2)History. No. In the Spanish era, the Falkland Islands depended on Montevideo.
3)Desires of the native population. Clearly not want to belong to Argentina. Not even the penguins.
So where does the argentinian claim stand on? Pure and simple chauvinism. We who live in Uruguay, so close to Argentina, know very well these mob of peronistas that rule this rich but corrupted country.

So where does the argentinian claim stand on? Pure and simple chauvinism.

that's not really a fair assessment. Mr. Marraco has laid out a case based on what he represents as legal claims. (I have, asnoted, some reservations there, as noted.) I can't speak to the validity of his history, but it does rise somewhat above pure chauvinism.

At the end of the day no UK government is going to surrender sovereignity of the Falklands without the consent of the population there. For many of my generation (I am 40) the Falklands War was a seminal moment, when after a generation of decline the UK stuck it to a nasty facist dictatorship. Argentina may have changed, but the Faklands Island lobby in Parliament is more than powerful enough to ensure that any future government upholds the committment to the Islanders.

If Argentina really wants the Falklands back, then winning them over appears better than harassing them. Argentina needs to demonstrate that the interests of the Faklanders at heart. Imposing a petulant economic blockade just reminds the Islanders what life would be like as an Argentinian colony and how little Argentina cares about the people who live on the Islands.

“The Falkland Islands ‘changed hands’ several times between the colonial powers of the French, Americans, Argentinians and British. Thus perhaps all have a valid claim?”

No. Only legal “changes of hand” give a “valid claim”. Such legal change of hands was from France to Spain, and from Spain to Argentina. Signed on treaties, and recorded on paper.

USA attacked Argentina just before the English invasion. That does not means a “change of hands”. Not even a claim from EEUU. EEUU apologized to Argentina recognizing the attack was illegal, and lacking of justification.
England just took advantage of the weakened island to invade it on 1833.

The previous illegal attempt was under French ownership, when England attempted to occupy a small islet near to the Falklands islands. Some British pretend that the islands were not French, and still pretend to derive some right over the Falkland islands because of the invasion to a small islet. As is an illegal occupation of an islet gave rights over the islands, but the islands legal ownership didn't gave right to an isled of the islands.

And England signed the Nookta Convention treaty with Spain, promising not to invade, in exchange of west Canada.

Human beings who respect law, and have some basic decency do not squatter foreign property, and do no claim right to decide on foreign property. Sons of squatters do not own the squatered property.

Of course so many countries support Argentina. Most countries support the rule of law. Not Britain or the Brittish.

I don't think you understand much about the law or rule of law. You say or imply that Argentina does but Britain does not "support the rule of law". Have you not been paying attention? Several comments have already made the point that Argentina has failed to submit its claims to have some legal rights to the Falklands to the International Court of Justice which Britain has been willing to submit its own claims to. So it is clearly Argentina which has decided to avoid the application of law, or any principles except those of populist politicians seeking to get re-elected.

After you have given the subject a little thought perhaps you could answer some test questions. For example, do you respect Israelis' right to live in a country legally recognised as Israel a sovereign country and the territory of Israel to be governed by those elected by the present inhabitants? Their claim to sovereignty is based on recognition by other countries including votes in the United Nations and is legal in the sense that the International Court of Justice would not uphold any contrary claim to the land. Do you not see the difficulty such instances provide for your case Falklands case quite different instead of which only pretends to respect the legal situation.

Beyond the legal situation, what do you think would be proper if Britain were to say that it would hand over the Falklands to the descendants of people who ethnically cleansed the native Americans who inhabited Argentina and the descendants of the far more numerous people who immigrated to Argentina long after 1833? What constitutional safeguards or guarantees of rights should be given to the Falkland Islanders (many of whose ancestors were in the Falklands before most of the ancestors of today's Argentinians were in Argentina)?

My mistake earlier,the USA did not invoke the Monroe doctrine (1823) which stipulates that America is for the Americans. They did after the Civil War (1861-1865) to kick the French out of Mexico. Why was this different

As Bridigo Cadanesso says "The next time they may be humiliated as the Portuguese were in 1961 over Goa". Britain never stood by Portugal at that time even though they were supposed to have had some treaty dating back hundreds of years.

The Argentinians were stupid when they invaded the Falklands in 1982 because (1) they promulgated Spanish as the sole official language and (2) ordered the inhabitants to drive on the right hand side. Not many want to be forced to learn a foreign language

Mrs Kirchner is now cozying up to the dying demagogue, Hugo Chavez, who rules Venezuela. Those who are able to read Spanish and have a copy of NOTICIAS should look at the picture on page 37

Self-determination is nonsence when the population has been supplanted.

Time for the British to recognise that a colonial empire is unviable in the 21st century. Lady K is right in that Britain is an empire in decline and if Cameron is wise he will begin the handover of the occupied islands before Britain gets humilliated as Portugal did in 1961. As Britain goes futher into decline and hand over the Falklands they could begin to think to drop their unrealistic Antarctic claims and stop their nuclear and massive destruction weapon program before its gets too expensive. After all the 2011 riots have shown once again the unglamorous reality in the islands.

You mean when Britain was in decline in the 1980s that Galtieri made a bet that they wouldn't retaliate? That strategy didn't work then and it would probably not work now given that the UK has one of the highest expenditures in military kit in the world. It is actually better prepared now than it was then.

I think everyone in Britain is fully aware that the empire ended in 1970s. It is interesting how some bore that has nothing tangible to say likes to invoke the empire as if it were some type of humiliation to lose it; the policy of the day was to divest (see Macmillan and the winds of change speech in Cape Town).

Britain has hit a rough patch, as much of the industrialized world. But is Argentina betting on the same strategy that was used in the 1980s to work? And is Cameron is betting on a no-one-likes-the-Argies strategy to defend the Falklands?

Both Cameron and Kirchner need to rethink their strategies. However, would it be so bad if these two sat down to talk?

It's not entirely clear which population you are referring to when you say that they were "supplanted."

When Europeans first came to the islands, they were uninhabited. That rather makes them different from the colonies established elsewhere (including in Argentina) by verious European nations, which had to deal with existing native inhabitants.

So to support your first sentence you would have to arbitrarily pick a moment in time, define whoever was living there at that moment as "the population," and then show that they were forced to leave in favor of whichever population you object to. Could you clarify those parts of your postion, please?

I said that, when the Europeans first arrived, there were no natives present. Is that not true?

I asked what moment in time you were referring to, when there were residents. I am assuming that you mean sometime prior to 1833. No argument from me.

So, when the English came, did they deport any and all Argentines who were resident there (in addition to military forces, which I personally would consider separate from residents)? Or just absorb them? In the former case, your view of "supplanted" is accurate. In the latter, it becomes less clear cut.

As a side note, the world is full of borders which have been moved by force. Some of them centuries ago, some in the past decade. Previous commenters have noted several in South America, but the rest of the world is full of them, too. At some point the new borders either get accepted or, in rare cases, reversed by negotiation. They have also been reversed (or, rather more often, superceeded) by force.

But at this point reversal by force, especially in the face of current residents who do not wish to be joined somewhere else, is not going to get widespread acceptance. (Unless you are as big as China, c.f. see Tibet, and even then acceptance will be far short of total.) That may be unfair, but is nonetheless real.

Buenos Aires sent a governor? Appointed one perhaps, which in itself is an empty act unless that governor controlled the Falklands, which was not the case. Argentina never controlled the Falklands or any part of them in any sense of the word. The Falklands were never the "property" of Argentina, lawfully or otherwise.

The French and Spanish occupations of the Falklands have zero relevance for Argentina and do not help the Argentine claim in any way.

“I said that, when the Europeans first arrived, there were no natives present. Is that not true?”

Is right. But the first settlers were French, and since his rights were legally transferred to Argentina, Argentina holds the right of first settlement.

When the British arrived, the islands were already occupied, and with an argentine designed governor.

“So, when the English came, did they deport any and all Argentines who were resident there (in addition to military forces, which I personally would consider separate from residents)? Or just absorb them? In the former case, your view of "supplanted" is accurate. In the latter, it becomes less clear cut.”

Yes, the British deported immediately everybody, bar some foreigner prisoners who escaped taking advantage of the invasion. After it Brittain captured and expelled all those prisoners, which were also foreigners to Argentina.

Britain added British citizens a decade later. His descendants are the only permanent British inhabitants.

“As a side note, the world is full of borders which have been moved by force. Some of them centuries ago, some in the past decade. Previous commenters have noted several in South America, but the rest of the world is full of them, too. At some point the new borders either get accepted or, in rare cases, reversed by negotiation. They have also been reversed (or, rather more often, superceeded) by force.”

That does not matter at all. Only signed treaties are legal reasons to switch borders and sovereignty.
The borders between Argentina and other countries are legal because of signed treaties. Not war. War gives no right.

“But at this point reversal by force, especially in the face of current residents who do not wish to be joined somewhere else, is not going to get widespread acceptance. (Unless you are as big as China, c.f. see Tibet, and even then acceptance will be far short of total.) That may be unfair, but is nonetheless real.”

Residents only can decide about property if they legally acquired that property. Not the case of the British.

Britain makes a circular argument: pretend that sovereignty is based on British inhabitant’s desires, and then pretend that British sovereignty is based on inhabitant’s desires.
But the fact is that British residents are foreigner invaders without any legal concession of territories by the legal owner.

By the way, Turks and Caicos islands tried to declare independence from Britain in 2009. His will was respected? Where his inhabitants consulted?
No England removed the government, and forced his own finger appointed authorities. No democracy here. Just hypocrisy.

How exactly were French rights to the Falklands - if any - transferred to Argentina?

The British first arrived in 1756, long before Argentina existed, so how an Argentine governor could have been there before Argentina existed is an interesting conundrum.

In 1833 the British did not deport anyone except a garrison from Buenos Aires (which at the time was not part of the United Provinces, so could hardly be called an "Argentine" garrison). All the civilians except two, who sailed with the garrison remained. This is a matter of recorded fact. Some of the Falkland Islanders today are descended from those settlers.

Foreign invaders? Sorry, but where do you 3rd generation Argentines draw the line? Most Falkland Islanders are 8th or even 9th generation.

"Appointed one perhaps, which in itself is an empty act unless that governor controlled the Falklands, which was not the case."

Of course he controlled the islands.

"Argentina never controlled the Falklands or any part of them in any sense of the word."

Just a lie without historical backing. History probes that was England who really never controlled the islands before his invasion on 1833.

"The Falklands were never the "property" of Argentina, lawfully or otherwise."

100% lie. Probe that on a tribunal.

"The French and Spanish occupations of the Falklands have zero relevance for Argentina and do not help the Argentine claim in any way."

Buenos Aires was the capital of the viceroyalty of the River Plate, when it was undisputed part of Spain.
The King of Spain assigned the legally, -and undisputed-, acquired
Falklands to Buenos Aires.
Buenos Aires sent a governor to the islands after independence.
It's a perfect title.

-England recognized Spanish ownership by signing the Nookta treaty.
-England recognized Argentine ownership when recognized Argentine independence witouth any territorial reserve.
-The crown of England settled a legal precedent when mediated on territorial disputes between Argentina and Chile: The crown of england decided that the limits and sovereignty between Chile and Argentina are derived from the king of Spain rules about jurisdictions dependencies between Chile, and the viceroyanty of the River Plate.

That's a perfect legal case for Argentina.

And what is the case for Britain? Only an invasion, which does not create rights.

“How exactly were French rights to the Falklands - if any - transferred to Argentina? “
“The British first arrived in 1756, long before Argentina existed, so how an Argentine governor could have been there before Argentina existed is an interesting conundrum.”

On 1756 The islands were already French property. They had a colony. They named the islands “Malouines”, after the French port Saint Maló. That’s the origin of the Spanish name: Malvinas.

So the British arrival on 1756 was illegal invasion of French territory. It gives no valid claim to England.

Far worse, the British did not tried to settle on any of the main islands but on Saunders islet, pictured here:

So, even if the British settlement were legal, it would give zero rights over the main islands. Not even a weak claim. They cannot pretend that the French did not owned Saunders islet, which is accessory to the Falklands, and at the same time pretend that a claim over Saunders islet gives rights over the Falklands islands.
At best they could claim Saunder islet, and nothing more. What the British calls Falklands inhabitant reside on the island originally settled by France, so they cannot base any right over the Falklands on base of Saunder island.

Spain protested to France because of the settlement, so France transferred the colony to Spain. Spain paid money for it.
Spain assigned it to Buenos Aires. That’s how Buenos Aires got the rights over the islands. And since Buenos Aires belongs to Argentina, the islands belong to Argentina.

AND The Nookta convention treaty gave the Nookta Canadian territories to Britain in exchange of Britain giving away his claims over the Falklands included on other spanish colonies. It cancels any British claim based on Saunders islet.

“In 1833 the British did not deport anyone except a garrison from Buenos Aires (which at the time was not part of the United Provinces, so could hardly be called an "Argentine" garrison)”

In 1833 the British deported everyone, but some escaped prisoners. A designed governor is not a garrison, and it does not matter if it was a garrison. It was Buenos Aires on exercise of sovereignty.
Buenos Aires is part of Argentina. Buenos Aires was the owner, and so Argentina is the owner.
Even if Buenos Aires had nobody on the islands, still had the inherithed titles from viceroyalty times. That’s far stronger that Brittain claim.

“. All the civilians except two, who sailed with the garrison remained. This is a matter of recorded fact. Some of the Falkland Islanders today are descended from those settlers.
Foreign invaders? Sorry, but where do you 3rd generation Argentines draw the line? Most Falkland Islanders are 8th or even 9th generation.”

No. No Falkland inhabitant descends from any of those settlers. They were official personal from Buenos Aires, and foreign prisoners.
Official personal were expelled. Foreign prisoners, also expelled by Britain, had not legal ownership over the islands.
Any inhabitant descend from British settlers who arrived a decade after the British invasion.

And sorry, but there is no line. It does not matter if they are 8, 80, or 900 generation. They don’t own the land, so they cannot transfer the land to their descendants.
It does not matter how long they sit on our territory.
Stop pretending that Argentina claims the islands just as a internal distraction and other excuses.

The British did not expel the settlers, only the garrison, which had only been in the Falklands for a matter of months.The settlers remained; the last died in the 1870s, and several are buried in Stanley cemetary.
Anyway, this is all nonsense. No-one is about to allow us to be colonised by a foreign power in this day and age on the strength of 'the king of Spain rules' from two hundred years ago.
The fact that some proto- Argentines couldn't do any better than using the Falklands as a penal colony isn't particularly compelling either.
I had a look at your map; what's all that about? The French didn't settle West Falkland, or anywhere outside Port Louis. And stop calling Saunders Island an 'islet'. It's 50 square miles, bigger that Jersey. You are deliberately trying to mislead people.

If Spain transferred rights of any kind whatsoever to Argentina at Argentina's independence it would have been done by mutual agreement and by treaty, which does not sit very well with the facts, ie. a bloody war of independence, and no recognition of Argentina by Spain until 1859. Argentina inherited absolutely zero from Spain. Argentina took its independence by force and whatever territory it could. That did not include many parts of the former Spanish Viceroyalty, like Paraguay, Uruguay, parts of Chile and Bolivia, which just goes to show that your assertion has no basis at all.

There certainly are Falkland Islanders today who descend from the civilians living on the Falklands in 1833. That is a fact, if an uncomfortable one for Argentina, but it's verifiable.

Was that the same Vernet who had British permission for his activities in the Falklands?

Nobody controlled the Falklands until 1833, least of all in 1826 when Britain recognised the United Provinces. A Buenos Aires garrison (Bs As was not part of the United Provinces in 1832/3) in the Falklands for less than 3 months falls very short of "controlling". They barely survived, and the garrison certainly did not give the UP or Argentina any rights.

The first power to control the Falklands was Britain, in 1833, and it was that way until 1948 when the UK voluntarily placed the Falklands on the UN list of Non Self Governing territories. The Falklands are British territory limited only by the duties under the UN Charter and UN resolutions. The Falklands have never been Argentine territory and will only become Argentine territory if that is what the Falkland Islanders wish.

"The British did not expel the settlers, only the garrison, which had only been in the Falklands for a matter of months.The settlers remained; the last died in the 1870s, and several are buried in Stanley cemetary."

What settlers? The isle was fully unoccupied before Argentina sent his "garrison". It was composed by the Governor, officers, and their families. The prisoners were foreigners.

Britain expelled everybody, but some escaped prisoners.

"
The fact that some proto- Argentines couldn't do any better than using the Falklands as a penal colony isn't particularly compelling either."

What Argentina did with his own territory is not your business.

"I had a look at your map; what's all that about? The French didn't settle West Falkland, or anywhere outside Port Louis. And stop calling Saunders Island an 'islet'. It's 50 square miles, bigger that Jersey. You are deliberately trying to mislead people"

So? The French settled where the British live today.
Saunder islet is an island of small size, correctly named islet.
An Saunder island is not the Falklands island.

"If Spain transferred rights of any kind whatsoever to Argentina at Argentina's independence it would have been done by mutual agreement and by treaty, which does not sit very well with the facts, ie. a bloody war of independence, and no recognition of Argentina by Spain until 1859. Argentina inherited absolutely zero from Spain."

Contrary to your lies, Argentina inherited all of his territory from Spain, including part of Tierra del Fuego, as the British crown recognized when mediated on disputes between Argentina and Chile over Patagonia.
And the Falklands were not just Viceroyalty territory, but specific Buenos Aires dependency.

By declaring independence, Buenos Aires inherited his formerly governed territories, as USA inherited the isle of Manhattan from Britain.

And even if that were not true, Argentina independence gives no right to Britain. ¿What is the excuse for Brittan to invade the islands? None.

"Argentina took its independence by force and whatever territory it could. That did not include many parts of the former Spanish Viceroyalty, like Paraguay, Uruguay, parts of Chile and Bolivia, which just goes to show that your assertion has no basis at all."

Those countries decided to be independent from Spain and Buenos Aires.
Not the case of the Falklands, whose inhabitants abandoned the island after independence.

"There certainly are Falkland Islanders today who descend from the civilians living on the Falklands in 1833. That is a fact, if an uncomfortable one for Argentina, but it's verifiable."

You are incorrect, the Falklands were occupied before the Buenos Aires garrison was sent. Employees of Vernet's mostly who had come in 1829, but also sealers and whalers, mostly from the United States. After the garrison left in 1833 there were about 30 civilians who remained living on the Falklands.

You are incorrect again. Argentina did not inherit from Spain any more than the USA inherited from Britain. Manhattan was won in a war of independence.

As for Argentina controlling Tierra del Fuego in 1826 when Britain recognised the United Provinces. Please don't make me laugh! Control from Buenos Aires barely went south of the rio Salado (del Sur). Alsina's "ditch", built in the mid 1870s, many decades after independence gives you a very good idea of where effective control extended to. Any territory Buenos Aires did not control was not Buenos Aires' territory.

"Was that the same Vernet who had British permission for his activities in the Falklands?"

Vernet first asked Britain, and rightfully got no answer. If Britain would have to him any permission, it would be illegal, since Britain had no basis to claim sovereignty.

His previous private acts, like the private acts of everybody, do not matter at all. What matter is that he was named governor by Buenos Aires.

"Nobody controlled the Falklands until 1833"

1- It doesn't matter because Buenos Aires had the titles.
2- Is false because USA made an attack over the Argentine garrison before 1833.
3- Is false because Britain expelled the Argentine garrison, governor, and prisoners. So obviously Argentina controlled the islands before 1833.

"The first power to control the Falklands was Britain, in 1833"

False. First power was France, then Spain, ruled from Buenos Aires, and then Buenos Aires.

Yes it is a fact, and it is verifiable. I invite you to travel to Stanley and inspect the Falkland Islands censuses for 1842 and 1851. Look up the name Antonina Roxa, she was one of the 1833 civilians. Still on the Falklands 20 years later. So much for "expelled"!

"You are incorrect, the Falklands were occupied before the Buenos Aires garrison was sent. Employees of Vernet's mostly who had come in 1829, but also sealers and whalers, mostly from the United States. After the garrison left in 1833 there were about 30 civilians who remained living on the Falklands."

False. Sealers and whalers only used the beaches for temporary works as was the custom on the entire planet. They were not inhabitants.

United States never made a claim over the islands.

The islands were uninhabited after independence until Buenos Aires sent people.

"Yes it is a fact, and it is verifiable. I invite you to travel to Stanley and inspect the Falkland Islands censuses for 1842 and 1851. Look up the name Antonina Roxa, she was one of the 1833 civilians. Still on the Falklands 20 years later. So much for "expelled"!"

If you are so sure of it, then accept to give the documents for examination to the ICJ, and let the ICJ decide over sovereignty.

Well the UK did dip their toe in the water by offering to take the Argentine claim to the Falkland Islands dependencies, ie South Georgia and South Sandwich, in the 1950s. Argentina turned the case down. What makes you think the Argentine case is any stronger today?

I'm sure the UK and more importantly the Falkland Islanders would welcome a case at the ICJ, but going on recent Argentine form in the Botnia case I somehow doubt that Argentina would accept the inevitable result.

Look pal, I live on West Falkland and I'm telling you that the French did not settle here. I have also been to Saunders Island and I'm telling you that it is not an 'islet', it is part of the Falkland Islands, and you won't find it named 'islet' on any map.
As for what is my business, if you are using something as an argument to deprive me of my home and my rights, and you are trying to win other people to your point of view by falsehood then it definitely is part of my business.
Have you had any luck with Antonina Roxa yet? She is famous here, one of the original settlers who stayed and helped establish a permanent settlement by passing on her gaucho knowledge which survives to this day.

"The crown of England mediated between Argentina and Chile in 1977, over the finer details of where Chile and Argentina drew their border!

That does not change the fact that in the 1870s Argentina did not control Tierra del Fuego."

No that was the last mediation. The British crown mediated many times, and used the king of Spain territorial decrees to decide sovereignty.
Those decrees were older that 1810, and no different in nature from the assignation of the islands to Buenos Aires.

Buenos Aires did not have the "titles". It is impossible to hold title to a territory unless you have effective control. Bs As certainly did not have effective control in 1829 when Vernet when to the Falklands, Bs As did not even have a presence in the Falklands.

Independent Buenos Aires never controlled the Falklands. Putting a garrison there, under protest, for less than 3 months does not constitute effective control.

Are Argentine territory? Yes, according to every brainwashed Argentine school kid and some of the adults it seems.

"Well the UK did dip their toe in the water by offering to take the Argentine claim to the Falkland Islands dependencies, ie South Georgia and South Sandwich, in the 1950s. Argentina turned the case down. What makes you think the Argentine case is any stronger today?"

In the 1950s Argentina was not member of the recently created ICJ. But after Argentina incorporation to the ICJ, Argentina proposed many times to take this to the ICJ. Britain is the refuser.

"I'm sure the UK and more importantly the Falkland Islanders would welcome a case at the ICJ, but going on recent Argentine form in the Botnia case I somehow doubt that Argentina would accept the inevitable result."

"Look pal, I live on West Falkland and I'm telling you that the French did not settle here. I have also been to Saunders Island and I'm telling you that it is not an 'islet', it is part of the Falkland Islands, and you won't find it named 'islet' on any map.
As for what is my business, if you are using something as an argument to deprive me of my home and my rights, and you are trying to win other people to your point of view by falsehood then it definitely is part of my business.
Have you had any luck with Antonina Roxa yet? She is famous here, one of the original settlers who stayed and helped establish a permanent settlement by passing on her gaucho knowledge which survives to this day."

So? If you are so sure, why don't you want to solve this on the ICJ?

If you accept to solve this on the ICJ, -I accept it-, then we can solve this between us and live in pace.

"Buenos Aires did not have the "titles". It is impossible to hold title to a territory unless you have effective control. Bs As certainly did not have effective control in 1829 when Vernet when to the Falklands, Bs As did not even have a presence in the Falklands.

Independent Buenos Aires never controlled the Falklands. Putting a garrison there, under protest, for less than 3 months does not constitute effective control.

Are Argentine territory? Yes, according to every brainwashed Argentine school kid and some of the adults it seems."

Argue that on a court. If the court accept it, then I have no problem.

We don't need anything from the ICJ because we already have what we want. If you want to take this to the ICJ, then do it.
I think you'll find that Argentina has never requested this, and my guess is that you never will. You might be sure of your arguments but your government is not.

"We don't need anything from the ICJ because we already have what we want. If you want to take this to the ICJ, then do it.
I think you'll find that Argentina has never requested this, and my guess is that you never will. You might be sure of your arguments but your government is not."

"I'd love the ICJ to settle this one, because the Falkland Islanders' case is guaranteed to win. But it's up to Argentina to take the case there, the ball is in your court."

If Argentina knows that the Falkland islanders want to solve this on the ICJ, I assure you, it would make big titles on Argentine newspapers, and media.

"We don't need anything from the ICJ because we already have what we want. If you want to take this to the ICJ, then do it.
I think you'll find that Argentina has never requested this, and my guess is that you never will. You might be sure of your arguments but your government is not."

I WANT TO TAKE THIS TO THE ICJ.
I WANT TO TAKE THIS TO THE ICJ.
I WANT TO TAKE THIS TO THE ICJ.
I WANT TO TAKE THIS TO THE ICJ.
I WANT TO TAKE THIS TO THE ICJ.
I WANT TO TAKE THIS TO THE ICJ.
I WANT TO TAKE THIS TO THE ICJ.
I WANT TO TAKE THIS TO THE ICJ.
I WANT TO TAKE THIS TO THE ICJ.
I WANT TO TAKE THIS TO THE ICJ.
I WANT TO TAKE THIS TO THE ICJ.
I WANT TO TAKE THIS TO THE ICJ.
I WANT TO TAKE THIS TO THE ICJ.

I've read all of your comments but I will try to be brief.
Argentina doesn't have a truly legitimate claim. The treaty of Nootka Sound Convention is irrelevant for a variety of reasons that I don't particularly want to explain (but the gist being they were nullified, repudiated, inapplicable to the Malvinas, and not applicable to Argentina). The UK never renounced their claim and none of the other countries claiming sovereignty forced the subject prior to 1933. The UKs renewed interest in the islands was because of increased US activity in the area. They did not take it by force, nor did they force out the settlers. Most of the Argentine population of Vernet’s settlement had already abandoned the island and only a few Gauchos remained at the time (because life there was awful). The governor was not forced out by the British, he had actually been killed weeks earlier by his mutinous Argentine crew (again because life there was awful). After the mutineers were arrested (mainly by French and British merchants), 80% of the remaining naval crew were British mercenaries who would not fight against the UK. The entire “forced takeover” of the Malvinas involved the British taking down the Argentine flag, folding it up respectfully, giving the flag and a kindly worded note to Pinedo, and reiterating their claim over the islands.

Claims that British expelled all of the settlers and only a few escaped convicts remained are untrue; the penal colony never actually came to fruition and the mutineers were actually returned to BsAs on a British Merchant Ship (six of them were later executed). The people who left during Pinedo’s departure were the people who arrived with him. The earlier settlers wanted to leave with him, but the British offered them silver coins to stay and continue hunting wild cattle. One of those settlers has since become an Argentine folk hero for murdering the British leader almost a year AFTER the UK reclaimed the land. The UK only established a more permanent presence after that incident.

As for your claims about the ICJ- they are complete bull. By being one of the original members of the United Nations, Argentina had been a member of the ICJ from its inception. If your intended meaning was that Argentina did not have a judge in the ICJ then that is also untrue. An Argentine judge was appointed in 1955, the same year that the UK requested a unilateral decision on the sovereignty of the Malvinas. It was thrown out in 1956 after Argentina refused to comply. Coincidentally, if Argentina actually wanted to go in front of the ICJ then they could request a similar ruling as it would ultimately force the UK to comply.

Also, the British courts did not make border decisions based on the Spanish territorial lines. They upheld the parts of the 1881 boarder treaty between Chile and Argentina that agreed boarders would be decided by the uti possidetis juris. However, they also decided that arbitrary maritime lines drawn by the Spanish territories and ruled in Chile’s favor. Argentina’s response to this ruling is another legitimate reason why the UK might not want to take this decision the ICJ; war almost broke out between the two countries. On the topic of uti possidetis juris- Argentines frequently use it as a reason why they have claim over the Malvinas, calling it international law. Uti possidetis juris is the belief that a newly formed state should have the same borders as their former dependent state. This concept was created by Latin American countries as a way to prevent border wars from occurring and was not a recognized international law at the time- Uti possidetis was the recognized law. Uti possidetis is the idea that a territory remains with whoever possess it after a conflict, unless a treaty is enacted. Under this law it is actually Britain who has claim over the Malvinas. If you consider the interaction between Pinedo and Onslow as a conflict then Britain possessed the territory after it and no treaty was ever drawn up to the contrary.

I love Argentina but, as an unaffected party (neither Argentine, nor British), nobody was ever able to convince me that this entire conflict is justified. If you look at the fluctuation of interest in “Argentina’s right to the Malvinas” and compare it to the economic/political of that year, it does seem likely that it is a tool by those in power to detract from more serious problems (like 9/11 is used here in the US). It really is like clockwork. If Argentina was fighting to make the Malvinas a separate sovereign nation then I would understand, but it just seems like it wants the people of the Malvinas to go from one colonial oppressor to another.

Actually you are wrong. The very first record of anyone landing on the Falkslands was a british captain called John Davis in 1592. However, the first recorded landing by a British navigator occurred almost a century later when Captain John Strong came ashore in 1690. In the early 1800's, numerous governments had a small presence, but none lasted. A few battles were fought to control the islands, but through it all the British prevailed, and finally asserted their long-standing claim. Also, you must remember, the islands were not colonised, there was no native people living on the islands.

surely you either jest or are ill informed. there was a governor appointed by buenos aires, luis vernet, who flew the argentine flag on the malvinas before being evicted at gunpoint. this is documented beyond dispute. refer to a reputed and impartial souce: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Vernet

historical, political and geographical questions aside, since you are living in west falkland and i in buenos aires i wish to say to you, man to man: i do not wish your lifestyle changed in any way, or your property taken. not at all. it is your home and heritage, you have worked your way and that deserves my respect. i only wish that if i ever have the opportunity to visit the islands that i can smile at you and you return the same grin to me. europe has been torn by wars galore and today they all embrace each other in the european union (well, if not all of the time, maybe some of the time). it`s time to build a better world for our children

So why not allow the Falklands to be an independent country, neighbour to Argentina in just the same way as Chile, Uruguay etc? Why does Argentina not recognise the Falkland Islanders and their right to exist? Moreover, why does Argentina not comply with its obligations under the UN Charter and a host of UN Resolutions to uphold the Falkland Islanders' right to choose their own destiny? Why has Argentina made it a constitutional imperative to take away the Falklands from the Falkland Islanders?

Luis Vernet went to the Falklands to pursue his commercial ventures with British permission. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Vernet flew the Argentine flag during either of his attempts to colonise the Falklands. You are also entirely incorrect that he was evicted at gunpoint. He was not on the Falklands in 1833, but he did have employees there and all of them freely chose to remain on the Falklands after the Buenos Aires garrison was ejected. Buenos Aires was not part of the United Provinces at the time, so it can hardly be called an Argentine garrison.

Actually, Luis Vernet went to the islands in a dual capacity. One, to pursue his commercial ventures, but also as an appointed official of Buenos Aires, namely commander. As such he flew an Argentine flag at his camp, as was and is customary, irrespective of the fact that no photos were taken of the event, since photography was not in existance at the time. Yes he did apply for British permission, which in legal terms debilitates the UK position since the local consul in Buenos Aires was not unaware that he was representing another government. And I do stand by my version that they were evicted at gunpoint. Vernet was in the mainland, and thankfully not a shot was fired, but the presence of a British Navy frigate made it patently clear that resistance was futile. They were ordered to cease in their role of garrison for Buenos Aires. That is the act of violence that is disputed to this very day. The fact that many or most of the settlers opted to stay, but as private individuals does not alter the situation or the fact that the existing settlement was forcibly evicted. may I say that I find the exchange of information in this forum particularly enriching, with different views, including at least one islander

Why would an "Argentine" governor of the Falkland Islands ask the British for permission to go there? Anyway, there is no evidence that Vernet took any positive actions in his "role" as "Argentine" governor and that includes flying a flag of any kind. You are simply speculating about what might or might not have been customary. By your logic his actions equally debilitated the Buenos Aires position, since the Bs As government was fully aware that British permission had been sought.

The garrison, was not an Argentine garrison, it was sent from Bs As, which at that time was not part of the United Provinces. It was correctly protested by the British via their minister at Bs As. When it did not leave as requested it was encouraged by an RN warship. Not a shot was fired. So no act of violence. And no population was expelled as the grossly misinformed Argentine Cancillería would have the world believe

Anyway, it's a bit rich of Argentines to accuse the British of violence over a territory to which Britian had a prior claim, had been settled before by Britain and when the vast majority of what is now Argentina was quite blatantly stolen, through the barrel of a gun, from its native owners decades after independence. And that process of conquest included bloodshed and some argue (I certainly do) genocide. Just a bit rich...

Going to the ICJ would be a good solution as far as I am concerned. After all, that's what courts are for - when two parties are in disagreement. The benefit for both is that the losing party can concede without losing face. The downside to this road I must confess rather ashamedly as an Argentine, is firstly that our government will never ever consider it. Secondly, in the unlikely event that it did, half of my fellow nationals would not want to abide by the ruling, were it to be unfavourable. We recently had a case taken to the ICJ against a paper mill in Uruguay, and many protesters that had illegally blocked the access bridges to our neighbour (and the government did nothing for years)simply stated that if the ruling was unfavourable they would just ignore it. The rule of law in Argentina is somewhat limited and fragile yet. So I reluctantly have to recommend to my islander friend not to bet on this horse

Look, regardless of historical or legal Argentine claims (most of which do not stand up to scrutiny), the people that actually inhabit on the islands wish to remain British. If they ever vote to join Argentina, then they are free to. But until then they will remain British, and rightfully so. This obsession that Argentines have with the islands is ridiculous, and watching Kirchner's bellicosity is frankly comedic. They were never Argentine, they will never be Argentine, and Argentina should look at its own internal problems rather than trying to pick a fight.

"Lies" is a word which demeans your standing in this discussion. Since you haven't shown the slightest interest in applying principle across the board being offensive in that way suggests merely that your emotions are in command, not your intellect or any attempt at judicious reasoning. Nearly all South Americans except the minority of people who are pure descendants of the original settlers from Asia about the end of the last Ice Age are people who hold their territories by right of conquest, just as the Romans did, the Normans in Britain and so on for a thousand other examples. And even those pure descendants had ancestors who conquered or were conquered to establish the Mayan, Aztec and Incan polities for example.

If you were thinking consistently about principles we might know your views too about the respective claims of Arabs and Israelis to the land of Israel. And do your sympathies extend to the passion of some Serbs for reversing the verdict of the 14th century battle of Kosovo which led ultimately to the modern country of Kosovo being a Muslim country which decidedly does not want to be ruled by Orthodox Christian Serbs? Also....

Now here's the real test for you. What about the claims of Muslims to southern Spain from which they were thrown out by violence? It would be nice to think that you would propose some sort of relief for the descendants of Jews also persecuted or thrown out of Spain as a result of emotions as strong as your based, in that case, not on intellect but on Christian religion.

I have a feeling that this operetta will never end. The people of Falkland, in a recent plebicit, decided overwhelmingly in favor of the present status quo. But the banana republic mentality that pervades all Latin American countries cannot accept reality and much less the will of free people. The inhabitants of Falkland do not want to be subject to the corrupt administrations that is the trademark of ALL Latin American nations: their will should be respected - if not by Argentina at least by all other governments, especially Brazil's.

Who should we ‘give countries back to’?
Singapore might be claimed by Malaysia (16-19th centuries), its pre-‘British-colonial’ (1824) master – pop. 1000 malays & a few dozen Chinese.
But it might have a prior claim from Sumatra, when the Srivijayan Empire ruled it since the 2nd century AD.
Today, the Chinese might claim it on behalf of the original ‘few dozen Chinese’.

This is why we have an International Court of Justice; so we don’t have to recourse to war, like in the Falklands in 1982.
The TFI situation having been resolved by force of arms at that time, any further bellicosity has the ICJ as its peaceful arbitrator.
If Argentina (who lost the war) feel they have a case – they should present it to the ICJ.

If by a quirk of history the Shetlands were controlled by Argentina then I could imagine similar antics from Whitehall.
Long term and subject to majority consent at least 50% maybe 75% the islands future rests with South America but not necessarily Argentina.
Significant oil finds might encourage the Falklanders to break away from a grab the oil loot crowd here in UK (we would waste the money!!) and seek a new settlement as equals because they are a a hardy bunch.

Argentina is facing high inflation and this may be a way of deflecting the attention of the population from its economic woes - shades of 1982.

My own belief is that the islands are geographically part of the mainland. Also LAS MALVINAS SON ARGENTINAS (The Falklands are Argentine) The British seized these islands from Argentina in 1833.

What I fail to understand is why, in 1982, when Argentina invaded the Falklands the UK did not invoke the Monroe Doctrine.

There is no real danger of Argentina using military means to regain these islands. On a train journey from Buenos Aires to Tigre I saw a soldier trying ti sell miniature flags. This is how decrepit/debased the military now is.

Englander would never have given Hongkong back if China was still a punch bag as 100 years ago. Englander and Americans are telling us what is modern piracy and how we survive in modern jungle: just look how overproportional American military forces is.

Argentina is just wrong on this occasion. President Kirchner is trying to make a bilateral issue into everyone's issue. But this is morally wrong and illegal especially since the blockage violates the World Trade Organization's trading rules. And in the case of Chile, it would violate the free-trade agreement it has with the EU.

And where is David Cameron in all this? The British Foreign Office is staffed with the laziest, most useless bunch of people. They need to make the case that there are 16 overseas territories that are linked to the UK. And for whatever reasons they've decided to stay linked is no one's bloody business. And independence will be negotiated between London and the respective territories, not a third party such as Argentina.

Colonialism is not a European phenomenon; it is a two-way street! What Argentina wants is a wholesale territorial transfer based on a rumour of ownership. If we want to go back to 1833, as others said on this posting, Brazil needs to give back the entire state of Acre to Bolivia, Chile needs to give Bolivia back its seashore, and the territories stolen during the Triple A war needs to be handed back to Paraguay.

The British government, if it is serious (which all evidence points to the contrary), needs to be more vocal than President Kirchner and make their case to the EU and the UN. It should demand, as Argentina has, that is allies support it, and put sanctions on Mercosur countries (i.e., banning their products from entering the EU) until the blockage is lifted. If they are not willing to do this, they need to pack it in and let the Falklands go.

Whatever you think of President Kirchner, you have to give her credit for having the audacity to take Britain head on.

Get a grip! We are already richer than the UK! If someone here that you can for sanctions in the United Kingdom is the Mercosur! Brazil is already richer than the UK and you guys depend on our products! And water!

You get a grip! And learn to proofread before posting. I didn't understand half of what you wrote.

The referred sanctions would be imposed by EU against Mercosul since it's a trading block.

Yes, the UK and Europe depend on Mercosul's agricultural products; but Mercosul needs financial services, technology, pharmaceuticals, and other products and services made in the EU. It's a two-way street, much more heavily skewed toward the EU. Brazil is rising, you're not there yet! Also, Brazil has 200m inhabitants versus UK's 60m, the size dictates your wealth, but the average citizen in Brazil (per capita GPD) is probably worse off. A ton of countries passed the UK in the past; Italy passed the UK in 1987 (il sorpasso), but fall back. France, according to economists, will fall back behind the UK. These ranking are what you make of it.

I'm quite surprised (amazed, honestly) so many readers having an opinion on argentine and Latin America historic issues.
I wonder why, if UK is so respectful of self-determination of a bunch of people in faraway islands, they took part in the following events:

1806-1807 Attempts to invade Río de la Plata, during a weakening of Spain kingdom, under Napoleon invasion.

1833 Occupation of Falkland/Malvinas islands

1845 Battle of Vuelta de Obligado (once again in Argentine Confederation territories), in alliance with French navy, under the excuse of bringing Argentine Confederation and Uruguay to an agreement.

We can also mention too many issues by Foreign Affairs of Bretain interests in the Río de la Plata colonies along the past centuries, which obviously, have absolutely no symmetry, in terms of argentine influence on british territories issues.

"1806-1807 Attempts to invade Río de la Plata, during a weakening of Spain kingdom, under Napoleon invasion."
ANSWER: To stick it to (defeat) Spain, one of its arch-nemesis

"1833 Occupation of Falkland/Malvinas islands"
ANSWER: All, and I do mean all, of the European powers were in a land-grab mode. They were grabbing land in the America, Asia, and Africa, where these weren't possible, grabbing each other's land on the European continent.

So, the Falklands were no different than say, Kenya, or Jamaica. During those empire building times (i.e., France, Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Austro-Hungary, Ottoman), everything was up for grabs and the objective of the "game" was those that controlled the trade routes won.

The United States also went on a land grab frenzy such as annexing Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and everything west of the Mississippi river.

Argentina did the same bloody thing. Just because you don't officially put the title "empire" does not mean that there wasn't an empire-building mentality. Don't be hypocritical.

"1845 Battle of Vuelta de Obligado (once again in Argentine Confederation territories), in alliance with French navy, under the excuse of bringing Argentine Confederation and Uruguay to an agreement."
ANSWER: To defeat the French. If you are in competition with the French, why would you let them win?

" I'm, too, unsuccessfuly trying to find "Argentine Empire" in Google. I DO easily find "British Empire", instead."
ANSWER: See above. But I do recall Argentina being part of Britain's informal empire, receiving tons of cash to build its ports, railroads, etc. There was even a Harrods in Bs.As. at one time. That's why there are down named Almirante Brown, Hurlingham, Lincoln, Banfield, etc. and there are football (futbol) teams with names such as River, Newell's Boys, etc.

Cheers Globalizer,
In your answers is the key to our claims.
Thanks, by the way, for all the informal wealth the Empire left so generously in the Pampa's lands (there must have been some interests of GB for doing so, as well).
I would only like to remark I have the greatest respect for English (and/or British) people. Love your country, love your language, your culture and all you left for the rest of Mankind.
But one thing is one thing, and another is another.
Have a great 2012!

Regarding Argentina having an "empire" attitude or mentality, that is something that deserves further discussion, defining "Empire", "mentality", "strategy", "results", and so on.
As a matter of fact, and just to answer to your statement, there haven't been ANY territories claiming for independance from Argentina, exception made of course for the bloody invasion to indian and native lands, in which case, I totally agree with you. And the only remaining conflicts were with adjacent countries like Chile.
We never had expansionist activities in Africa, or Asia, or anywhere else, but internal Latin America wars to constitute each nation, same as in Europe took place so many wars.

But you can google "Tripe Alianza" war when a coalition of Argentine, Brazil and Uruguay caused the biggest genocide in Latin American history. We, regrettably, killed three fifths of Paraguay population in 1864. Rapes, torture and kidnappings of thousands of children to be sold in the slaves market of Brazil took place during that war.
You would like to find "Argentine Empire"...thanks to God you are not to find it ever. You bet.

I just don't get it.
Triple Alianza war, was a coalition between Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay (you wrote it yourself), but you state this as proof of an "Argentine empire"???????
You can speak as much as you like, but be honest to yourself at least, and check what you think with what you write.

Should I prove that Argentine is an empire? No, only that that point is irrelevant and that we are no guilt-free. Furthermore, as a consequence of that war Paraguay was stolen half its territory. Are you going to give it back to it? Are you going to give us back Martin Garcia island? Are we going to give back their lands to the natives who use to live here? What is more and I am trying to explain is that Argentina never exercised sovereignty over the Falklands.

And for all the bluster on this board, a war or even a major trade embargoes, probably will not come true (although I think that countries that signed up to the WTO or have free-trade agreements need to live by their commitments and not cosset up to President Kirchner's demands that she needs to have tea with the UK's prime minister).

The argument of Argentina is: it's my land and you stole it.

The argument of the UK is: the land is not yours; we never took it from you; we will do whatever the islanders want.

In defense of the British, they have a very strong track record of giving people their independence when voted. If the people keep saying no, what do you want them to do?

What's irritating from the UK's POV is that there is an insistence that there must be a dialog, when the islanders have clearly stated that there is nothing to discuss. Islanders, as far as I know, will always welcome Argentines so long as they respect their right to be British AND to manage their own resources without Buenos Aires meddling and telling them what to do.

Does this make sense? To an Argentine probably not. To someone with an Anglo-Saxon mentality absolutely.

And Hong Kong was LEASED from China and the agreement was to hand them back in 1997. And to the Chinese's credit, they never meddled, blocked, threatened, or anything. They lived by their word.

I saw on Casa Rosada's YouTube site, President Kirchner at the UN blabbling about how the UK is not respecting the dozens of UN resolutions to resolve the issue. I think these resolutions said sit down and talk, but I don't think they are binding and I don't believe they can force anyone to talk (see reason listed above).

This is my last comment on this topic. I have no power to resolve anything.

The confrontation by now is preposterous, unduly protracted, and both sides are spending substantially more in terms of money and efforts than the can ever hope to gain. In that context, both sides are equally obdurate.

I agree with my fellow reader Globalizer that China's behaviour in connection to Hong Kong has been impeccable, and favourably surprised me a lot. The only small correction here is that HK island was ceded to Britain in perpetuity after the shameful Opium Wars and ensuing treaties. It was the New Territories that were leased, and upon expiration, duly returned. HK island was unviable all alone.

Brits are not hated either in Argentina, with the exception of a bunch of rabid nationalists. There is a large community since the XIX century, churches, hospitals, cemeteries, newspapers, clubs and so forth.

There is a similar case, the Aland islands in the Baltic sea. Populated by Swedes, very close to Sweden's shores, yet belonging to Finland, who in turn received them from Russia. Just like in the South Atlantic, a rather messy and convoluted story. However, an amiable solution was reached in 1920 under the auspices of the League of Nations.

That the islanders have every right to maintain their property, traditions and way of life, plus to manage their own resourses independently is crystal-clear to me. And believe me I am not the only Argentine to see things this way.